iota_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch details,' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., object not found), return format, or any side effects. The description adds no additional context about the tool's behavior beyond what the name already suggests.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any redundant words. It is appropriately brief for a simple fetch tool, and the key information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'details' includes or what the caller should expect in the response. The lack of an output schema means the description should provide more context on return values, but it remains incomplete in that regard.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'objectId,' so the schema already explains it as an IOTA object ID. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic information. Per the rubric baseline, since schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Fetch details of an IOTA object by ID' uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('object'), and clearly specifies the lookup key (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iota_objects_by_owner which lists by owner, and iota_get_coins which deals with coins, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the tool is for retrieving a single object by its unique ID, nor does it contrast with iota_objects_by_owner or iota_get_coins. The agent receives no usage context, so the description fails to help in tool selection beyond the basic purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.